If you read the comments on any reel/post about cycling on Instagram, you really get a sense of how many people actually think about cyclists. I've seen comments like 'cyclists are subhuman' or other ones gets thousands and thousands of favorites. People really are in a hurry now and cyclists are just something to barely dodge for many of them. And even when cyclists get hit/killed, 25% of the time the driver doesn't stop. Cyclists (in many place) are basically sacrificing their lives to try to help build critical mass for what should be a more standard way of getting around.
Cycling is more pro-social, better for the environment, takes up less space on the roads and for parking, and also helps against the obesity crisis. It should not be so dangerous in so many places.
There was a post on our local NextDoor a few years back where a woman cyclist was asking if anyone had seen the car that struck her while she was cycling on one of the main drags in town. She was injured and wanted to get info for a police report and insurance info. The comments were so awful that I quit NextDoor. Most of them were blaming her because she was biking - they hadn't seen anything, they just assumed that the person biking must've been at fault. I remember one said something to the effect of "You cyclists are slowing us all down! Stay off the road!". Made me realize that I live in proximity to a bunch of shitty human beings and I guess I would have preferred to stay in the "ignorance is bliss" stage of not knowing.
I remember being told something about how the pane of glass of a windscreen/display/etc has an interesting psychological effect on humans, where sort of dissociates us from the reality of the moment.
I don’t know the extent, or how true it is in reality, but from my experience as a cyclist, dealing with drivers, I’d definitely believe it. Get someone out of the car and you can watch the patina of confidence and self-righteousness slide off in real time.
I don't know, man. My experience in the Bay Area is that most people are trying to make the best of what they're in and they're usually kind. Cars will make room for me to lane split, other drivers will get out of the merge lane to make room, and cyclists and pedestrians are usually doing the right thing.
Overall, I'd say I like my fellow road users. They're kind to me generally and I try to do my best to them.
My own experience with Critical Mass in several cities in Europe has left me with mixed feelings. It’s one thing for a few cyclists in the stream to stand at an intersection and block traffic until the whole stream of hundreds of bikes has passed. But I have repeatedly seen cyclists not only block a car from passing the intersection, but begin thumping on its hood and shouting insults – and not because the car is trying to proceed, but because the cyclists are high on some sense of tribal unity. This does not boost public sympathy for cyclists, which is supposedly why we are all riding together in the first place.
The problem is perhaps that Critical Mass is a free-for-all where participants don’t have to participate in any initial orientation and be told “Please don’t be a jerk”. Any time human beings come together in big groups, that is a necessity, and cyclists are no exception.
yep :) love critical mass and the various bike parties (offshoot of CM). Related: https://www.harvard.com/book/two_wheels_good/ This book is such an amazing read for anyone into cycling.
Ironic how you replied to a comment about a group of people being subhuman with pointing out that the opposing group is in fact the subhuman group. Very mature.
When you say “cyclist friendly” do you mean “fully physically protected bike lanes”? Lots of cities paint on bike lanes (often in the door zone of parked cars…) then people are confused when cyclists often don’t use them. But if they aren’t safe or are always obstructed by parked cars, it’s really not that helpful…
A lane of road was taken away in order to move things around and put in fully physically protected bike lanes. Then the cyclists proceeded to use only the single remaining lane.
The arrogance of cyclists is truly awe inspiring. Convince a city to spend multiple hundreds of millions on rebuilding infrastructure only to not only not use it, but actively and arrogantly NOT use it just to be the arrogant pricks that they have the image of.
I use to defend cyclists until that particular failure of a project. They worked overtime to ensure that the stereotype was no longer just a stereotype.
Very badly, it was actually a double failure. Due to traffic being restricted to fewer lanes, sitting there in idle increased drastically, actually making the bike lane infrastructure actively worse for the environment. This giving climate change denialists ammo for their handicapped idiotic propaganda.
Cyclists had a fully-protect lane free of cars and decided to ride in the middle of a lane filled with idling cars? I'm not sure where you live, but that's just not the behavior I've seen anywhere else...
I'm not denying what you've seen, but it just doesn't match what I've seen at all.
> Several cities have opted to remove their protected bike lanes for exactly the same reasons.
Sure, but many cities are rapidly _expanding_ their network of protected bike lanes because of how widely they're used.
I don't have data to back this up, but I suspect that many more miles of protected bike lanes are being added each year than removed. For example, NYC [1]. For another, here's a compilation of many cities. [2]
I've literally never seen it on any street that has a proper bike lane, and I've driven in many places with proper bike lanes. Cyclists pretty much universally prefer safe proper infrastructure to sharing lanes with cars and painted bike gutters, for entirely obvious reasons. You're literally the first ever person I've encountered claiming otherwise, so I'm sure you'll understand why you're getting incredulous pushback here.
> my city spent hundreds of millions rebuilding downtown infrastructure to be cyclist friendly
Not that you probably care, but in most places, investment and growth of cycling results in a net gain for the community and government, both directly and indirectly.
Cycling infrastructure is cheap to put in, cheap to maintain, and has social + health benefits too. The state + city I live in love putting in cycling infra (even if it’s a bit flawed and wonky) because it literally gains money. Road maintenance costs go down, short and long-term health spending decreases because people are healthier.
I’m really sorry to tell you this, but cycling infrastructure actually doesn’t improve health, because statistics on bicycle usage doesn’t show any notable increases with or without biking infrastructure.
First reason, at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Second reason is cause, at least in the south, cause it’s fucking hot
Third reason is cause most of us are incredibly lazy.
Do you have sources that measure your other purported benefits? By source, I mean actual measured sources in a study. Not “it’s true because this article also states it, but does so with bad anecdotes”
I’m not against reducing cars on the road. I am against doing it wrong though.
With the skimming of abstracts, that took < 5 minutes from opening google to typing this. Three will suffice, I trust? I don't have hours to read abstracts for the other fifty.
>at least in the north, is cause it’s below zero for half the year.
Oh, okay, in the north. If you're American, I'm currently north of you unless you happen to be in Alaska, and I bike 9-10 months a year, basically until it gets below zero. Someone forgot to tell Canadians it's below zero here for half the year :)
I've encountered a few stories about cities ripping up bike lanes, but in all of them the story was completely different from the picture you're painting. That's why I asked for the city, so I can find a different source and compare to your narrative. Otherwise, not much can be concluded from one-sided lores like yours.
I’ve been clipped by more cyclists coming from behind (2 this year) than I have by cars (0 ever). Yeah, the weight classes are different and being hit by a car is far more dangerous, but also far more likely to be reported.
Don’t even get me started on these completely unregulated motorized bikes zipping down the sidewalks at 30 mph. Those things need to be shitcanned till regulation is in place.
The problem is all the rapha weekend warriors blocking roads. I’m a cyclist and a car enthusiast and so I straddle the line between both groups. Obviously cyclists are the underdog here but they aren’t all angels.
So the thousands of uber eats drivers blocking the roads to transport a sandwich are a non issue, but a tiny number of people using the roads to go somewhere on the weekend are?
When you choose to ride in a 55+mph two-lane highway in the country side when you've got logging and gravel trucks continually passing you, I don't know. Can we consider that a death wish, no matter what the law says on paper?
These aren't commuters as it is ~40 minutes by car to the mothership and they're most often found on the nice days during the weekend wearing spandex, sometimes even with numbers on their back.
There are lots of problems. But if you think that one of them is groups of people engaging in athletics and enjoying the outdoors, then I would suggest that one of the problems may be in the mirror…
I ride in the road. I occupy a full lane. I use my u-lock to dent body panels when needed. There’s still a way to coexist with cars and a way to be an obnoxious rider.
Occupying the full lane is the suggested way to ride for your safety. Drivers will attempt to kill you if you ride on the side by running you in to the gutter to perform an unsafe overtake.
Yeah honestly the bikers that I hear people rage about are the folks who ride in the middle of roads, especially uphill, and who don't even try to let folks pass. They get mad at people driving slowly like that too.
Independent of who's "right", when I bike, I don't do that, and can't say I've ever had anyone in a car angry at me.
They aren't being antagonistic, they are protecting themselves. Allowing a motorists to pass you without leaving their lane is a really good way to end up dead and is also illegal on the motorists part. They are moving over to force the motorist to pass them in a legal and safe manner.
I felt like you just ignored the point of the person replying to you. Cyclists are in more danger from passing cars when they aren't in the middle of the lane, as they tend to get run off the road. When they are in the middle of the lane, the other car needs to perform the same passing technique they would normally do (exiting the lane and getting into the oncoming traffic lane).
The chances of you getting into a wreck for pulling over getting hit in a Tow Truck is in no way equivalent to a cyclist doing the same thing. You have visibility and weight.
As a non-cyclist, ya it can be a pain in the ass, but the cyclist has the legal right to the whole lane.
Which was ignoring my point above: "I've see people move into the middle of the lane for an approaching car so it won't pass, and when there would've been room to pass safely."
At least in California the law is:
"Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway
at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall
ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb".
I get the safely part, but I'm talking wide separated lanes here, well over 14ft with weekend warrior-types trying to swerve in front of cars after having them behind them for a mile or two (no honking or tailgating). It's ridiculous and needlessly aggressive.
I'm sure there are tons of cyclist who misue these rules and are truly unsafe. Also, the Cali law isnt as cut and dry as you stated.
"A new bicycle lane change law was approved in 2022 and took effect on January 1, 2023, across all of California. Motorists approaching or overtaking a cyclist on the road must now switch lanes if another lane is available."
"In certain circumstances, cyclists may “take the lane” and use an entire lane, just as a car would. Riders may claim a full lane if they are passing, readying for a left turn, steering clear of an obstacle, or if they feel the lane is too narrow to share with a car"
Once a law leaves latitude for how someone was "feeling", it effectively legalizes the practice in almost every scenario.
>If I'm driving well under limit due to towing, looking for address, etc - I pull over and let people pass. It's not so hard for a bike to do same.
Thats cool! It's also not hard for motorists to wait literal seconds to safely pass a cyclists. Cyclists shouldn't need to pull over all the time to accommodate motorists need to speed down the road. You aren't entitled to go 10 mph over the speed limit. It's a limit, not a minimum.
>I've also seen bikers upset when a kid is going slowly in a bike lane? So I think many of the spandex-clad dudes have some control issues.
Wow! You did? Crazy! It's almost like a group of people with a shared hobby aren't a monolith and will display different opinions and behaviors!
Cycling is more pro-social, better for the environment, takes up less space on the roads and for parking, and also helps against the obesity crisis. It should not be so dangerous in so many places.